US GP

I think the fact that Stoddard serves his own agenda has been proven by now, no? His facts could be accurate, but boy does he go out of his way to put an anti-Ferrari and anti-FIA spin on things. Think he's kissed enough ass by now for the big boys to accept him into their club? :disappoin

Kissing ass? I think you'll find he is kickin' ass. Or at least as much as a minnow like him can.

The vitriol between Max and the majority of the team owners (not just Stoddard) has reaced a totaly unconstructive level. How can anything hope to be resolved then all the players genuinely hate each other so much? I was surprised to see Stoddard use the term "FIAsco". :lol:

Quote city Alex! Where does the first one come from? Were Michelin really the originator of the idea? Worked out well for them if they were! I guess the FIA asked the question so Michelin brainstormed an answer. Are they responsible for othe current evils like the multi race engine rules and qualifying too?

What does that have to do with anything? Phil, you're not the only one I'm trying to have a discussion with here. If you read through the posts (should you bother, I wouldn't), you'll see that some people here blame the FIA for the farce because they introduced the tyre rules, while in fact not only were these rules supported by Michelin, they were in fact suggested by them. The next quote is for those who, unlike you, refuse to realise that Michelin miscalculated and brought a tyre too soft (unless it was a manufacturing defect or a design defect - not even Michelin seem to know at this point) even though they knew the challenges that faced them, and it was their mistake that caused the whole problem (I have a feeling of running in circles here).

The last two I take it are some kind of joke. Of course there is a banking at Indy :rolleyes: However, there were all sorts of problems with the recent resurfacing in both NASCAR and IRL, it was a cocked up job.

Read the quotes by the Firestone guy? Firestone are the company who exclusively supply IRL, and he says there were no "durability issues"

Oh yes, Stoddy the ass kicker. More like a little pest who would try to bite the big dog while it's weak, then, on discovering it's not weak enough, run away squealing with the tail between the legs. He's not part of the GPWC, so he needs to show he's house broken to maybe be thrown a bone or some scraps from the table.

The next quote is for those who, unlike you, refuse to realise that Michelin miscalculated and brought a tyre too soft (unless it was a manufacturing defect or a design defect - not even Michelin seem to know at this point) even though they knew the challenges that faced them, and it was their mistake that caused the whole problem (I have a feeling of running in circles here).
At the risk of again interupting some discussion that apparetly is none of my concern. I don't think the problem with the Michelins is a simple as them being "too soft", like Max alludes. Rather it sounds like a problem with the tyre wall construction that could not handle the maximum load generated by the high grip and downforce in the banking. But then, what would I know?

Read the quotes by the Firestone guy? Firestone are the company who exclusively supply IRL, and he says there were no "durability issues"

I had heard that there were problems at tests earlier in the year. However they are far from reliable sources (much like pitpass?). I am keen to see something definitive.

Oh yes, Stoddy the ass kicker. More like a little pest who would try to bite the big dog while it's weak, then, on discovering it's not weak enough, run away squealing with the tail between the legs. He's not part of the GPWC, so he needs to show he's house broken to maybe be thrown a bone or some scraps from the table.

Careful Alex, you're starting to sound almost as bent and twisted as you accuse Stoddart of being.

Ah here we go:

http://www.indy500.com/news/story.php?story_id=4332

KING: Brian, we fully expected to be fighting with cars on the track, they'd be able to hear you and Joie during this press conference. There were cars on the track yesterday, but it's my understanding that Firestone has canceled the remainder of the test. If you could address that, please.

BARNHART: Joie and I will be talking with Al Speyer and the Firestone people later this afternoon. As you all know, the surface was repaved here last fall. Yesterday was the first time we had cars on track on the full oval portion of the repaved track. And Firestone came back with several of our teams to do a Firestone tire test for a first run on the new surface. That's standard procedure, very methodical how we do it. They have since canceled and postponed the test. They're going to return later this month. They don't have anything finalized yet, but the look and hope is to come back in the next couple weeks. I think they want to go re-evaluate some things they have seen right away from the cars on track and I think they might have experienced some unexpected results from what they had seen. That's pretty standard, like I say, with the procedures which you go through. Once a track has been repaved, you're going to run, do a methodical process, re-evaluate that data, take a look and we'll come back and take another look at it, like I say, in the next couple weeks.

KING: Brian, anything specific at this point that can be addressed or until you sit down with Firestone and the drivers that were on track, is this kind of an ambiguous sort of situation?

BARNHART: I think it's -- we don't have anything that's jumping out at us. I think everybody was being a little extra cautious. I think they experienced something they had never seen before and unexpected. At that point in time it's better to go evaluate it than it is to try to run through something that you don't know what's going on. They took some of the tires back and they're going to re-evaluate them, get back with us what they see.

It's a bit cryptic, but if Firestone "experienced something they had never seen before and unexpected." then that sounds like something changed. :dunno: Of couse Michelin should have investigated such things and taken them into account when they selected the Indy 2005 tyres, so it's no excuse.

Here is a picture of the track surface at Indy. First we had grooved tyres, now we have a grooved track.

http://www.f1sokuho.com/gprpt05/r09/images/061711.jpg

And here is a pic of a Michelin off one of the crashed Toyotas. See how the tyre wall has split away from the tread.

http://www.f1sokuho.com/gprpt05/r09/images/061713.jpg

Here is a picture of the track surface at Indy. First we had grooved tyres, now we have a grooved track.

http://www.f1sokuho.com/gprpt05/r09/images/061711.jpg

For some reason they like to do that to roads around here in Baltimore, makes for great grip in winter, but on dry tires, it plays havoc with the steering as it makes the tires wander about all over the place.

That looks pretty bad, but as you've said, it is no excuse. I've also read that Ralf's tyre blew on his first flying lap :eek:

the grind is like that on purpose, more grip. IRL did just fine with it.

Max Mosely's side of the story:

Official FIA Press Release
THE UNITED STATES GRAND PRIX
QUESTIONS TO MAX MOSLEY
22.06.2005

What about the American fans who travelled long distances and spent a lot of money to see a race with only 6 cars?
My personal view, and it is only my personal view, is that Michelin should offer to compensate the fans on a fair basis and ask the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to coordinate this. Then Tony George and Bernie Ecclestone should jointly announce that the US Grand Prix will take place at Indianapolis in 2006 and that anyone who had a ticket this year would be entitled to the same ticket free-of-charge next year. But I emphasise, that’s just my personal view.

Should you not have just forgotten about the rules and put on a show for the fans?
You cannot do that if you wish to remain a sport. Formula One is a sport which entertains. It is not entertainment disguised as sport. But even more importantly Formula One is a dangerous activity and it would be most unwise to make fundamental changes to a circuit without following tried and tested procedures. What happened was bad, but it can be put right. This is not true of a fatality.

Why did you refuse the request of some of the teams to install a chicane?
The decision was taken (quite rightly in my view) by the FIA officials on the spot and notified to the teams on the Saturday evening. I did not learn about it until Sunday morning European time. They refused the chicane because it would have been unfair, against the rules and potentially dangerous.

Why unfair?
Because modern Formula One cars are specially prepared for each circuit. To change radically a circuit like Indianapolis, which has very particular characteristics, would be a big disadvantage to the teams which had brought correct equipment to the event.

Is this why Ferrari objected?
No, Ferrari had nothing whatever to do with the decision. They were never consulted. Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi, as the Bridgestone teams, were not involved.

Why would a chicane have been unfair, it would have been the same for everyone?
No. The best analogy I can give is a downhill ski race. Suppose half the competitors at a downhill race arrive with short slalom skis instead of long downhill skis and tell the organiser to change the course because it would be dangerous to attempt the downhill with their short skis. They would be told to ski down more slowly. To make the competitors with the correct skis run a completely different course to suit those with the wrong skis would be contrary to basic sporting fairness.

Never mind about ski-ing, what about Formula One?
OK, but it’s the same from a purely motor racing point of view. Suppose some time in the future we have five teams with engines from major car companies and seven independent teams with engines from a commercial engine builder (as in the past). Imagine the seven independent teams all have an oil surge problem in Turn 13 due to a basic design fault in their engines. They would simply be told to drop their revs or slow down. There would be no question of a chicane.

All right, but why against the rules, surely you can change a circuit for safety reasons?
There was no safety issue with the circuit. The problem was some teams had brought the wrong tyres. It would be like making all the athletes in a 100m sprint run barefoot because some had forgotten their shoes.

How can you say a chicane would be “potentially dangerous” when most of the teams wanted it for safety reasons?
A chicane would completely change the nature of the circuit. It would involve an extra session of very heavy braking on each lap, for which the cars had not been prepared. The circuit would also not have been inspected and homologated with all the simulations and calculations which modern procedures require. Suppose there had been a fatal accident – how could we have justified such a breach of our fundamental safety procedures to an American court?

But it’s what the teams wanted.
It’s what some of the teams wanted because they thought it might suit their tyres. They wanted it because they knew they could not run at full speed on the proper circuit. We cannot break our own rules just because some of the teams want us to.

Why did the FIA stop the teams using a different tyre flown in specially from France?
It is completely untrue that we stopped them. We told them they could use the tyre, but that the stewards would undoubtedly penalise them to ensure they gained no advantage from breaking the rules by using a high-performance short-life tyre just for qualifying. We also had to make sure this did not set a precedent. However the question became academic, because Michelin apparently withdrew the tyre after trying it on a test rig.

Michelin were allowed to bring two types of tyre – why did they not have a back-up available?
You would have to ask Michelin. Tyre companies usually bring an on-the-limit race tyre and a more conservative back-up which, although slower, is there to provide a safety net if there are problems.

Is it true that you wrote to both tyre companies asking them to make sure their tyres were safe?
Yes, we wrote on 1 June and both replied positively. The letter was prompted by incidents in various races in addition to rumours of problems in private testing.

So, having refused to install a chicane, what did the FIA suggest the Michelin teams should do?
We offered them three possibilities. First, to use the type of tyre they qualified on but with the option to change the troublesome left rear whenever necessary. Tyre changes are allowed under current rules provided they are for genuine safety reasons, which would clearly have been the case here. Secondly, to use a different tyre – but this became academic when Michelin withdrew it as already explained. Thirdly, to run at reduced speed through Turn 13, as Michelin had requested.

How can you expect a racing driver to run at reduced speed through a corner?
They do it all the time and that is exactly what Michelin requested. If they have a puncture they reduce their speed until they can change a wheel; if they have a brake problem they adjust their driving to overcome it. They also adjust their speed and driving technique to preserve tyres and brakes when their fuel load is heavy. Choosing the correct speed is a fundamental skill for a racing driver.

But that would have been unfair, surely some would have gone through the corner faster than others?
No, Michelin wanted their cars slowed in Turn 13. They could have given their teams a maximum speed. We offered to set up a speed trap and show a black and orange flag to any Michelin driver exceeding the speed limit. He would then have had to call in the pits – effectively a drive-through penalty.

How would a driver know what speed he was doing?
His team would tell him before the race the maximum revs he could run in a given gear in Turn 13. Some might even have been able to give their driver an automatic speed limiter like they use in the pit lane.

But would this be real racing?
It would make no difference to the race between the Michelin cars. Obviously the Bridgestone cars would have had an advantage, but this would have been as a direct result of having the correct tyres for the circuit on which everyone had previously agreed to race.

Did the Michelin teams have any other way of running the race if the circuit itself was unchanged?
Yes, they could have used the pit lane on each lap. The pit lane is part of the circuit. This would have avoided Turn 13 altogether. It is difficult to understand why none of them did this, because 7th and 8th places were certainly available, plus others if any of the six Bridgestone runners did not finish. There were points available which might change the outcome of the World Championship.

But that would have looked very strange – could you call that a race?
It would seem strange, but it would absolutely have been a race for the 14 cars concerned. And they would all have been at full speed for most of each lap. That would have been a show for the fans, certainly infinitely better than what happened.

Did not Michelin tell them quite simply not to race at all?
No. Michelin said speed must be reduced in Turn 13. They were apparently not worried about the rest of the circuit and certainly not about the pit lane, where a speed limit applies. If the instruction had been not to race at all, there would have been no point in asking for a chicane.

Didn’t the Michelin teams offer to run for no points?
I believe so, but why should the Bridgestone teams suddenly find they had gone all the way to America to run in a non-Championship race? It would be like saying there could be no medals in the Olympic rowing because some countries had brought the wrong boats.

What about running the race with the chicane but with points only for the Bridgestone teams?
This would start to enter the world of the circus, but even then the race would have been open to the same criticisms on grounds of fairness and safety as a Championship race run with a chicane. It would have been unfair on Bridgestone teams to finish behind Michelin teams on a circuit which had been specially adapted to suit the Michelin low-speed tyres to the detriment of Bridgestone’s high-speed tyres, and the circuit would no longer have met the rules.

Have you ordered Michelin to produce details of all recent tyre failures as reported on a website?
We cannot order Michelin to do anything. We have no contractual relationship with them. Their relationship is with the teams. However, we have an excellent understanding with both tyre companies and with many of the teams’ other suppliers. We find they always help us with technical information when we ask them.

Wouldn’t Formula One be better if one body were responsible for the commercial side as well as the sport?
No, this is precisely what the competition law authorities in many parts of the world seek to avoid. It is not acceptable to them that the international governing body should have the right both to sanction and to promote. This would potentially enable it to further its own financial interests to the detriment of competitors and organisers. Apart from the legal aspect there would be an obvious and very undesirable conflict of interest if a body charged with administering a dangerous sport had to consider the financial consequences of a decision taken for safety reasons.. You can be responsible for the sport or for the money, but not both.

Didn’t this entire problem arise because new regulations require one set of tyres to last for qualifying and the race?
No. The tyre companies have no difficulty making tyres last. The difficult bit is making a fast tyre last. There is always a compromise between speed and reliability. There have been one or two cases this season of too much speed and not enough reliability. Indianapolis was the most recent and worst example.

Finally, what’s going to happen on June 29 in Paris?
We will listen carefully to what the teams have to say. There are two sides to every story and the seven teams must have a full opportunity to tell theirs. The atmosphere will be calm and polite. The World Motor Sport Council members come from all over the world and will undoubtedly take a decision that is fair and balanced.
For further information on the FIA, please consult our Internet site:
www.fia.com

On the eve of the FIA World Motor Sport Council meeting in Paris on
Wednesday, Michelin has released the following press release.

"One week after the Indianapolis Grand Prix, Michelin wishes to make a
sincere gesture of goodwill towards the people present at the GP, a group
whose passion for F1 is encouraging in the development of this sport in the
United States.

Therefore, on our own initiative and in total solidarity with our partners,
we have taken two decisions:


1. Michelin has decided to contribute to the costs incurred by the
spectators present at the circuit on Sunday June 19th 2005 by offering to
refund their tickets. This is an important decision, since Michelin is not
at all legally bound to do this.

Michelin deeply regrets that the public was deprived of an exciting race and
therefore wishes to be the first, among the different groups involved in the
Indianapolis race, to make a strong gesture towards the spectators.


2. Michelin also offers to buy 20,000 tickets for the 2006 U.S. Grand Prix
to be given to spectators who were present at the Indianapolis race in 2005.
We are offering this to promote further Formula 1 interest in the United
States.



We would also like to take this opportunity to underline the fact that it is
unacceptable that our partner teams have been accused by the FIA of having
boycotted the Indianapolis Grand Prix. The reality is that together,
Michelin and its partners have done everything possible to assure that the
race could take place in total safety.

We are extremely disappointed that the proposals made with all our teams
were not accepted. These proposals, including a chicane, were technically
viable and totally met all safety requirements. On Sunday morning, June 19,
the sporting authority had all the means necessary to preserve the interest
of the race. And yet, the sporting authority rejected the proposed
solutions. Why? In our view this is totally incomprehensible and reflects a
lack of respect for the spectators.

It is the spirit of respect for the spectators that brought us, with our
partners, to propose solutions to allow the race to take place in total
safety. It is this same spirit that leads us today to make this gesture."

hey is it still possible to get my money back?? i know its a bit late but it would of been nice to of seen a full race sitting only 15 rows from the start/finish line :(

Given that Michelin has offered to reimburse all ticketholders I'd say you should have a good chance. Get in touch with the place you bought your tickets from or the IMS to find out.

Given that Michelin has offered to reimburse all ticketholders I'd say you should have a good chance. Get in touch with the place you bought your tickets from or the IMS to find out.

eh really i dont care anymore. i kinda got re-embursed with the Cleveland Grand Prix, i'll wait till next year and hope that this dosnt happen again.